whittlesea & manea station enhancement report of … · whittlesea & manea station...

Whittlesea & Manea Station Enhancement Consultation Report.

WHITTLESEA & MANEA STATION ENHANCEMENT

REPORT OF CONSULTATION

Executive summary

Masterplans were developed for Whittlesea, Manea and March Railway Stations and adopted

by Fenland District Council as part of the Fenland Rail Development Strategy 2011 - 2031.

This consultation relates to the platform lengthening project for Manea and Whittlesea stations

and the provision of a footbridge at Whittlesea Station.

To increase the platform length at both stations and provide a footbridge at Whittlesea multi

stage study work is required. Initial study work was undertaken by ARUP in 2015 to examine

the viability of options to achieve this vision. This provided a positive outcome and enabled the

projects to move to the Network Rail GRIP (Guide to Rail Investment Process).

During 2017 and 2018 GRIP stage 1-3a was delivered by Network Rail for Fenland District

Council on behalf of the Hereward CRP. This process identified 3 options for each station.

Local residents and rail users were invited to view the identified options and provide their

comments. This consultation took place between 16th April and 30th May 2018. . During this

period events were held at Whittlesea Railway Station, Whittlesey Market Place, Manea Village

Hall and Whittlesey Town Hall. At these events residents and rail users were able to view the

identified options with CRP representatives present to answer questions discuss ideas and

preferences relating to the different options.

97 response forms were received at events and online including one letter expressing the

collective views of the Whittlesey & District Business Forum.

A wide range of comments were received detailing different opinions about the options. In

addition comments and suggestions were made about the station in general that are outside

the scope of this particular consultation project. This information will be retained and where

possible used to inform the Masterplan items that relate to these areas.

The overall results from the responses were positive and all options received a level of support

from respondents. However, it is clear that option 1 for both stations was the most strongly

supported by the majority.

It is therefore recommended that Manea Option 1 and Whittlesea Option 1 be considered as

the publics preferred options.


Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………Page 3

Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Page 5-16

Manea Option 1…………………………………………………………………..….Page 5

Manea Option 2………………………………………………………..…………….Page 7

Manea Option 3……………………………………………………………….……..Page 8

Whittlesea Option 1………………………………………………………….…….Page 9

Whittlesea Option 2………………………….………………………………..…..Page 11

Whittlesea Option 3………………………………………………………..………Page 12

Preferred Option……………………………………….……………………..……..Page 14

Further Comments………………………….……………………………………….Page 14

About You……………………………………………………………………..………..Page 15

Recommendations & Next Steps……………………………………………………………………………..Page 16

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..Page 17


Introduction

The Hereward CRP

The Hereward CRP (Community Rail Partnership) is about local community involvement in the

railway. One of the aims of the Hereward CRP is to bring about improvements to our local

stations for the benefit of rail customers and to enable local people to have their say on the

development of the railways in our area.

Railway Station Masterplans

One of the ways the Hereward CRP is achieving this aim is through the Railway Station

Masterplans for each of the Fenland Stations. Masterplans were developed for Whittlesea,

Manea and March Railway Stations and adopted by Fenland District Council as part of the

Fenland Rail Development Strategy 2011 - 2031. The Fenland Rail Development Strategy is

delivered by working in partnership with the rail industry, the department for transport, local

authorities and community and volunteer groups. We are working towards a significant

number of improvements to these stations.

Whittlesea & Manea Railway Station Enhancement Project

There are numerous projects identified within the Whittlesea & Manea Railway Station

Masterplans respectively. However this consultation relates to the platform lengthening

project for both stations and the provision of a footbridge at Whittlesea Station. Both

Whittlesea & Manea Railway stations currently have platforms long enough to allow only two

train carriages to open their doors for passengers when at the station. This is insufficient for a

large number of trains that service this line and this issue is expected to increase in the future

as rail use and demand for longer trains increases.

To increase the platform length at both stations and provide a footbridge at Whittlesea multi

stage study work is required. Initial study work was undertaken by ARUP in 2015 to examine

the viability of options to achieve this vision. This provided a positive outcome and enabled the

projects to move to the Network Rail GRIP (Guide to Rail Investment Process).

Platform Lengthening and Footbridge Options

GRIP stage 1-3a has been completed. This process has identified 3 potential options for each

station. These options are

1. Manea Railway Station

a. Extension of both platforms at the northern end.

b. Extension of both platforms at both ends.

c. Platform 1 extended at the northern end and a new Platform 2 provided beyond

the level crossing.

2. Whittlesea Railway Station

a. Platform 1 extended eastward and Platform 2 extended westward and provision

of a footbridge linking them.


b. Platform 1 extended eastward and a new Platform 2 provided opposite with a

footbridge linking them.

c. A new Platform 1 provided opposite Platform 2 and Platform 2 extended

westward with a footbridge linking them.

The next step for this project is to identify which one of the 3 proposals for each station to take

through the rest of the GRIP stages.

Consultation 2018

Identifying the preferred option requires weighing up a number of factors. An important part of

this process is considering the views of the station users and local community. Therefore a

public consultation took place between 16th April 2018 and 30th May 2018. During this period

events were held at Whittlesea Railway Station, Whittlesey Market Place, Manea Village Hall

and Whittlesey Town Hall. At these events residents and rail users were able to view the

identified options with CRP representatives present to answer questions and discuss ideas and

preferences relating to the different options.

The consultation information and option details along with the consultation response forms

were also made available online for the duration of the consultation period. This was

advertised in the local press and at a number of venues in both Whittlesey and Manea.

97 responses were received at events and online including one letter expressing the collective

views of the Whittlesey & District Business Forum.


Results

The consultation forms asked for preferences and comments on each of the identified options.

The responses received are as follows –

1. Please indicate for each option whether you agree and tell us your views

Manea Option 1

Strongly agree comments

Provides a solution to the problem

The disused siding will never be reinstated, so it can be removed

As I use the trains every other day I would like the hourly trains. The platforms will need to be extended.

Appears to be best value for money / least complicated

Both of these (options 1 & 2) would be easier to do and cause less disruption

This would seem the most logical with the least impact on the nearby road and housing. Probably the quickest to build too.

Seems like the most logical, useful and easiest to maintain/use!

This option seems the most logical, requiring the least work and fulfilling the criteria for longer trains.

Less work required, disused siding if not in use should be repurposed.

This will be the most clean route and maintain the physical safety gap between the road and platforms. This may also maintain the road crossing barriers to be lifted when a train travelling to

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

StronglyAgree

Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree

Do Not Know Did notanswer

Manea Option 1: Both platforms extended at the northern end.


Peterborough is stationary on the platform as opposed to keeping the barrier down whilst any train is stationary in Manea Station.

Agree Comments

Options 1 & 2 would be better

Need to guarantee the platform will be long enough for 4 carriage trains. Is there opportunity for further development in the future?

Neutral Comments

By northern end, I assume you mean westwards. This makes some sense and would not disrupt the road crossing. Increasing platforms must be linked to provision of a car park.

I believe there is a problem about overlooking houses.

Urgent need for car park

Disagree Comments

Need more platform space than this option will give

Strongly Disagree Comments

The siding and road limits the length of one platform

Don't know Comments

I live in Whittlesey and never use Manea station

Do not use Manea station

Don't travel from Manea

I am not a Manea resident


Manea Option 2


No point doing one

We need as much as possible

Both of these (options 1 & 2) would be easier to do and cause less disruption

Provides an alternative solution to the problem

To give more platform space

This is the obvious and only solution! Why are we having yet another delaying and pointless consultation

Agree Comments

This option seems to utilise the available space most effectively.

I do not know how this plan would be accommodated as the level crossing would be too near.

Neutral Comments

Urgent need for car park

Disagree Comments

Think there would be more issues with this as the road would presumably have to be moved. More disruption, and would take longer to put in place.

I don't like the idea of the platforms moving closer to the road.

Extension at both ends must cause extra disruption at the road crossing.

Construction too close to level crossing

Not helpful when it comes to parking.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

StronglyAgree



Manea Option 2: Both platforms extended at both ends.


This could offer people a dangerous shortcut to the road / pathway

Extending the platforms toward the road would prevent any future road widening

Don't know Comments



Manea Option 3


The only future proof solution enabling platform improvements should it become necessary

This allows for further development when the village grows. More parking and longer platforms.

Need car parking

Preferred option for both services

Would like to extend the station, making full use of land available as was in usage in the station's heyday. All spaces were utilised and could be in use again as the station is fully adopted again!!

This appears to be the 'future-proofing' option and appears to most able to support longer trains in the future

Has the best potential for further expansion in the future

This option will allow for a better car park area.

Mainly because there will be an area for a car park next to the platform. Urgent need for car park

I would like this plan however it is down to the cost of the plan. Extended platforms are required for the longer trains.

Possibly the best long term solution

Agree Comments

Not sure if the amount of traffic warrants the 'gate advantage'?

Seems best option to me but must be linked to the provision of a car park at the station.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

StronglyAgree



Manea Option 3: Platform 1 extended at the northern end and a new Platform 2

provided beyond the level crossing.


Neutral Comments

Would seem to me easiest to work with what you already have - i.e. option 1.

Disagree Comments

Not enough traffic to warrant barriers to be lifted whilst train at station.

Silly to build on opposite side of the road when platforms can be extended easily

Better to keep the platforms in parallel so that passenger presence and safety is protected by volume


It could end up like Whittlesea station. People could feel vulnerable at night being behind the signal box.

I don't understand the benefit of not using and improving the facilities already in existence.

This would then make travelling to and from station disjointed, which side would be the car park? Whichever side people would have to cross the level crossing. Not ideal for elderly, disabled and mums and dads with prams and push chairs. Also personal security for ladies and young on side to Ely as it is not over looked

Not ideal as have to cross railway line

Don't know Comments

Seems a bit disjointed



Whittlesea Option 1


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

StronglyAgree



Whittlesea Option 1: Platform 1 extended eastward and Platform 2 extended

westward. Plus a new footbridge with ramp and stair access.


This seems to be a good working solution.

Appears to be the best/least problematic solution

This would seem the better option and have the minimum visual change to the original layout.

Both platforms have access from a drop off point with a good turning circle for Cars, taxis and possibly (one day) buses/mini buses as part of an integrated local transport system - this future proofs the station, and apparently does it in a cost effective manner by building on what is there.

By far my preferred option. This minimises the impact of work taking place by keeping the overall station layout similar to present. Cost of the project will be significantly reduced, compared to options two or three. While it could be argued that to have both platforms adjacent could have benefits, I do not believe that this outweighs the additional cost and length of the project. Options 2 & 3 both present significant issues or would require changes to railway infrastructure. While option 2 would reduce the distance between Station Road and Platform 2, the location of the footbridge would most definitely cause an issue with the current location of the station starter signal on Platform 1. Option three has the disadvantage of platform 1 being further from Station Road. In my opinion, the key project aims are met by Option 1 in a cost-effective solution. The location of the footbridge would have a lesser impact on railway infrastructure. Whittlesea Station Improvements - to cater for longer trains and most importantly, the addition of a footbridge are long overdue. Very few stations in the country have no pedestrian access to the opposite platform when the gates are closed. Considering the amount of time the gates are closed and the expectation that in the coming years, the number of trains passing through per day will increase the requirement for these improvements is stronger now than ever before. I support the case for Option 1 and believe that these improvements should be considered a priority, with a view to increasing the number of passengers using Whittlesea Station. By making rail travel easier for local people and increasing passenger numbers, local authorities can present a more compelling case to Train Operators for the current 2-hourly service to be improved.

Provides a solution to the problem

This appears to be the most cost effective and sensible option

Would be a great improvement

Of the three options the Whittlesea Society are of the opinion that option one is preferable with small amendments. 1. From draft plan 469/01 (ARUP study 2015) the sub-station was to remain, in option one it has gone. The bus stop is certainly needed when buses replace trains. 2. Extend platform 2 to the west and move the bridge with it. 3. Move the car park to the east of the access. 4. In the future leave space for a lift to be installed at both platforms at the bridge and provide the base for same when platforms are extended.

Does not restrict service road. Utilises both existing platforms + maximises parking area/access

Better use of existing site at lower cost

Less cost

Footbridge does not overlook properties

My second preferred option out of 3

Agree Comments

Options 1 & 2 would be better

Need to guarantee the platform will be long enough for 4 carriage trains. Is there opportunity for further development in the future?

Neutral Comments

Disagree Comments


Footbridge not convenient for general use while barriers down. Not a fan of platform 2 location. It's isolated at night time.

This gives a cheap mish-mash of platforms; for so many years Whittlesea has had messy non-opposite platforms. I think if we are going to improve the station then it is worth doing it properly (option 2)


Don't know Comments

This would appear to be the least costly option, which must come into the decision

Whittlesea Option 2


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree


Whittlesea Option 2: Platform 1 extended eastward and a new Platform 2 provided

opposite. Plus a new footbridge with ramp and stair access.


I think this would provide the best option for people walking to the platforms

Not sure what this means for parking, but it looks the better option because of the proximity to Station Road.

I'm keen on the idea of platform 2 being nearer the road. At night it feels unsafe and dark currently. The bridge is also in a better location nearer the road.

This option puts the station as close to Station Road as possible meaning that it is closer to the town and more obvious to the public rather than being tucked away down a side road. From the safety point of view it is closer to the main road and people will feel safer using the bridge. Although the access road to the car park and industrial units will need widening, this option also gives the space for a large well-lit carpark.

I would like a well-lit station with more trains stopping at regular intervals. A suitable car park with access for the disabled in all areas. I don’t mind where the bridge or ramp is situated as long as it can be accessed easily

We need electric gates

Provides an alternative solution to the problem

Compact and has potential to extend either/both platforms later if required-ve: cost -ve:access

My preferred option out of all 3 options

Only sensible option. Along with electric gates, but no foot bridge!

I am no authority on these things And would welcome any change that would give us more frequent trains and a footbridge

Agree Comments

Neutral Comments

Slightly more beneficial than option 1 in terms of platform location but the cost and impact on railway infrastructure outweigh the benefits.

Disagree Comments

Would be better if the bridge was moved to the other end of the platform and the ramp to the bridge moved to where the disused platform is.

This seems more disruptive to implement

Whittlesey people are inconsiderate of others, they are likely to stop their cars without consideration for other's access. With the access road being narrow this increases the possibility of blocking the junction at peak times i.e. when a train is due and most people will want to access the station especially if the gates are closed.

This will cost more as there is no plan to use existing platform


Don't know Comments


Whittlesea Option 3


My last favourite option out of all 3 but happy this would be ok

Hopefully will allow more frequent trains, less delays, more choices & less congestion.

Agree Comments

Moves platform 2 further away, greater cost potentially.


This seems like the most expensive option and puts both platforms out of sight of the road. However this would require people to drive down to the drop off areas

Neutral Comments

Disagree Comments

Does not fit well

This seems more disruptive to implement


Significant, lighting + safety improvements would be required. Footbridge not located conveniently for general use.

Expensive & few benefits.

This pushes both the platforms further from the town centre, so less people will be inclined to use the train as it will involve further to walk and be down a rather lonely side road. At the moment platform 1 is "safe" and close to the road and level crossing. This option would make platform 1 a lonely platform just like platform 2. As the station is not manned, consideration needs to be given

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

StronglyAgree



Whittlesea Option 3: A new Platform 1 provided opposite Platform 2 and Platform 2

extended westward. Plus a new footbridge with ramp and stair access.


to women or children waiting for trains in isolated places.

Don't know Comments

2. Please tick the box with your preferred option for one or both stations

3. Further comments

50 participants provided further comments. Most repeat the same comments listed above

regarding the option choices.

Other items raised (in order of most popular) were:

Improvements needed for car parking

Service frequency should be increased

Improvements needed to lighting at the station

Ticket machines (and better prices and availability) are needed

The level crossing should be automated

CCTV required at the station

Better fencing is needed at the station

Better shelters are needed on the platforms

Better signage is needed at the station

An individual suggestion was also made for the introduction of electronic charging points at the

station.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Manea Railway Station Whittlesea Railway Station

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Did not answer

Preferred option-


These comments are duly noted in this consultation report. However they are outside the

scope of this particular project. The information will be retained and where possible used to

inform the Masterplan items that relate to these areas.

The full comments are detailed in Appendix 1.

4. About You

Details about the consultation participants-

57

35

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Respondents Gender

Male

Female

Did notanswer

7

74

3 14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Do you have a disability that influences the way youtravel?

Yes

No

Prefer Not toSay

Did notanswer

3 3

11

28

20

18

7 7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Respondents age ranges

Under 16

17 - 24

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 64

65 - 74

75 - 84

85 +

Did not answer


Recommendation and next steps

The overall results from the responses were positive and all options received a level of support

from respondents. However, it is clear that option 1 for both stations was the most strongly

supported by the majority.

It is recommended that Manea Option 1 and Whittlesea Option 1 be considered as the publics

preferred option.

43

1 1 1

45

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Respondents Postcodes

PE15

PE19

PE3

PE6

PE7

Did not answer

88

9 9

22

6 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Connection to Manea or Whittlesey

Live in or around Manea or Whittlesea

Work in Manea or Whittlesea

Business Owner

Shop in Manea or Whittlesey

Visit Manea or Whittlesey

Did not answer


The next GRIP stage for the platform lengthening projects at Whittlesea and Manea involves

taking one preferred option forward to examine in more detail. The selection of the preferred

option will be based on a number of key considerations. These include (but are not limited to):

• Technical requirements

• Operational issues/effects on the rail infrastructure

• Public support/Consultation feedback (preferred option 1)

• Strategic fit – potential to benefit or support other projects or aspirations for the station

• Cost implications

It was noted within the consultation that there are advantages and disadvantages to all 3

layouts for each station and therefore the final option could incorporate a mixture of the best

opportunities from more than one of option. This is particularly relevant for the location of the

footbridge at Whittlesea Station. The responses received in this consultation relating to the

siting of the footbridge will be considered as part of determining its final design and location

for GRIP stage 4.

APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Further Comments

4 car platforms are short-sighted and allow no error of judgement to drivers or a change in traction. The platforms should be minimum 5 car. The line won’t have 4 car class 170 units forever; there could be potential for the new bio mode units to operate KGX-PBO-CBG-KGX using the March lines, and a short platform of 4 cars will mean that WIT and MNE don’t benefit from this. As ever the project is planned to the knuckle and never future proofed. That’s what happens when it is given to office bods who don’t get out on the railway much. They don’t have vision!

Access to the industrial area should not be restricted therefore, if unable to resolve I would favour Option 1 to save cost and apply funds for better parking provision and safety.

All three of the proposed options have advantages; so to summarise: any one of them will, if implemented, make much needed improvements to Whittlesea Station

As a user of the station the biggest requirement is a more frequent service

As ever with all things public sector, the main thing is to get on and do it. There is also little information about what this will mean for improved train services, which is, of course, the most important issue for Whittlesey.

Car park required


COMMENTS ON WHITTLESEY STATION: 1. It would be helpful if gates were automated. 2. If manual gates are to remain that the operator could sell tickets as they used to do. 3. Greatly improve the lighting which is presently poor.

For Whittlesey it does not make it clear whether there is any difference in car parking provision between options 1 and 3.

Getting longer platforms and a better service 7 days a week and hourly service, but this mean a lot of people from the other villages using the station and unless we get a long awaited car park it will cause a lot of problems.

Hurry up and carry out the work to provide the much needed extra platform space

I am very keen for the station at Whittlesey to be improved. It will be good for the town and it’s people. We have all the inconvenience of them (trains) but with few benefits as it is now. The footbridge is a great idea and to have a frequent train service would be excellent. With extra freight expected also we do need to get the Kings dyke crossing sorted as soon as possible. This could bring in more people to our town which would encourage visitors and as such hopefully better shops. Add a supermarket and we could become a buzzing town to be proud of. Bring on the station changes as soon as possible.

I do not feel I have sufficient insight to comment on Whittlesea Station. However, I do frequently use Manea Station to travel into Peterborough and also Ely. I would welcome an hourly service and also car parking facilities which would certainly increase my use of the train service from Manea.

I think a large car park would be more beneficial to the community

I think it is very important you are able to buy and or as a minimum collect tickets (automated machine?) at Whittlesey station

I think it would be a waste of money. You only have to walk to the first two carriages to get off, no hardship, and would not encourage any more people to use the service than the ones that use it now

I use this line every day to commute to London. More/better sheltered seating is needed as it’s very bleak in the winter with the added issue of more train delays, and definitely a footbridge.


Improvement desperate for Whittlesey station

In addition to extending the platforms, it is critical that additional services stop at Whittlesey rather than passing through.

In my view, the most important thing is that more trains stop at Whittlesea. Please don't spend money on the platforms unless this is guaranteed. If more trains stop I believe there will be increased


usage and potentially this could relieve pressure on Peterborough station. If this is the longer term plan then I think these options should be considered in conjunction with increased parking requirements.

Instead of extension could you please look at installing electric barriers, a lot of time is lost waiting for the manual barriers to be operated.

It would be useful to have a digital train screen showing times etc. and a ticket machine to collect advance tickets. Currently have to travel to Peterborough in advance to collect tickets.

LETTER RECIEVED ATTACHED TO PAPER FORM..... The Whittlesea Society have examined the latest proposals for Whittlesea station. We note that little progress has been made since it was discussed in 2011. We also note that the ideas remain. The latest proposals have been discussed by the society on May 14th 2018 and we wish to make the following suggestions, some of which could be started in the near future. -comments added to relevant option sections above- It would (also) be useful if hourly services stopping at Whittlesea station were implemented as soon as possible.

LETTER RECIEVED IN LIEU OF CONSULTATION FORM (2 copies of the same letter were received)... We have supported the efforts of the Hereward Community Rail Partnership (HCRP) to inform and seek feedback on the various options following the feasibility study. Individual forum members have registered their responses to you separately, however, we felt that it would be appropriate as an organisation representing the business community that we register our combined democratic view, this was put the your representative at the meeting in Grosvenor House Whittlesey (Council Office) and we were encouraged to do so. Following feedback from members we have selected option 1 as our preferred layout because more members selected this than any other. We wish to see: Modern automated ticket issuing to maximise recording of passenger numbers and revenue for the operator(s). Larger and better laid out parking area. Motion detecting energy efficient lighting for all passengers. CCTV system integrated with WTC scheme. Improved safety and security by fencing and management of the area. Automated road crossing gates to reduce traffic delays that currently affects all the commercial and industrial users close by. In addition to this the Whittlesey and District Business Forum will be engaging with the community and businesses again at our inaugural Business Community Fayre on 20th May at the Manor Leisure Centre (supported by Fenland District Council). Your facilitator has kindly lent us the posters that formed part of the consultation presentation, we will be actively encouraging individuals to register their thoughts and opinions. We feel this initiative could be a significant help in our drive to promote the parish of Whittlesey. I trust this registration is of interest to you. -Whittlesey and District Business Forum

Make an informed decision and get on with it

More trains stopping at Whittlesea & more lighting to make the area safe, also signage to the town centre to stop confusion when leaving the station

Need to incorporate a free car park within the plans.

Not very well publicised - found out by fluke but use Whittlesey station at least once a week. Happy all 3 options would work but prefer option 2. Had to look/ask for a feedback form - should have been handed one when I entered. No-one asked us if we had any questions about options - this could have been better manned.


One of the main issues presently with Whittlesea Station is the dark + isolated walk from platform 2 at night. Only option 2 addresses this. The footbridge is good, not just for commuters, but also for general pedestrian use while barriers are down. Options 1 + 3 site the footbridge so far away that there would likely be very little time saving benefit over waiting at the crossing for the train to pass! Option 2 looks to tick all boxes. Definitely the preferred option! I really hope that these works result in an improved service. Whittlesea Station is so convenient for commuting in the mornings but a 2 hour service post-morning rush makes my return difficult.

Option 1: Does not impede the service road (required for commercial use and two way route to car park). Both platforms long enough to cater for greater passenger numbers resulting from more frequent trains stopping. Better use of abandoned infrastructure. Potentially lower cost therefore the following additional assets could be included in the project: *Automated platform access to save the need for an on board ticket collector/ticket sales person. *Larger & better laid out parking area *Electronic vehicle charging point *Motion detecting low energy lighting *CCTV linked to WTC/Fenland system *Improved fencing and management of trees/bushes/grass *Automated road crossing gates to reduce inconvenience to road users/industrial area.

Personally, would love to be able to use the train, for travel to Peterborough, Cambridge, Norwich and Stansted airport. Also need to look at car parking at Whittlesey station, to encourage wider use of train, trains to be available when the public needs them and fares need to be at a level which makes it advantageous and discourages the use of cars.

Platform extension will lead to increased services and must be linked to provision of a car park at Manea Station.

Please see note above regarding Whittlesea Station - Option 1.

Re Whittlesey - Automatic gates and No Footbridge!!!

Station should be called Whittlesea Hereward or Whittlesea Mere

The better the facilities the better for the village

The cost is paramount in these extensions. As long as we can have the longer trains I would like to have the best solution along with Sunday stopping trains at Manea.

The current ramp up to the westbound platform is a little steep for someone with walking difficulty. The proposed revised layout does appear to allow for a longer ramp, which would be helpful.

The issues to address are 1) get more people on the trains 2) get more trains stopping 3) make it safe and lit 4) provide a safe carpark/bus stop/taxi base 5) Clear signage and information 6) Make access as easy and safe as possible. Please choose an option which satisfies all these - in my opinion it is option 2 which clearly puts the station in the safest and most accessible position.

The nearby industrial area and car park needs unrestricted access so the bridge selection that restricts this road should be avoided, maybe reversing the layout to some extent by moving bridge EAST and the relevant ramps etc. The station should be equipped for the future with electric vehicle charging points because more cars will be powered this way even if the trains are not. Lighting and parking


(including fencing & security) plus CCTV linked to Fenland system should be part of the plan.

The passenger shelters on platform 1 and 2 are definitely not fit for purpose. Your designers are welcome to visit them especially when it’s raining, snowing and a full freezing gale blowing across the exposed fenland. Believe me it’s an ordeal for the passengers. Please replace shelters and give passengers some comfort when waiting for their trains.

There is a growing population in Whittlesey due to all the new housing developments. The train would be very convenient for those commuting to London for work rather than driving all the way to Peterborough station. Having regular trains would make the station more frequently used.

There was collective dismay in Manea hearing that such a pointless and money wasting consultation was being carried out. Again. We also need, with a huge degree of urgency, a fit for purpose station car park

This may be received twice, due to internet issues last night I am resubmitting to be certain it is received. While this consultation relates to the infrastructure there needs to be far greater promotion of the changes to the station and the frequency of the trains and the travel cards available - Currently the Hereward Rail partnership considers only Senior Citizen Rail Cards and Disabled Rail Cards worth promoting on its website. This bias says a lot about the type of services the rail Partnership is likely to be lobbying for. Consideration needs to be shown in public for young people, families, couples of working age all of whom have railcards aimed at them and who have daily transport needs for work study and leisure.

This upgrade is needed sooner rather than later

To say thank you for bringing this meeting together. (name provided)

Urgently need due to excess traffic on A605 However better parking will be needed

We travel regularly on the train, but find the times are very restrictive. When travelling to Stansted or Cambridge, it is easier to catch a bus to Peterborough and get the train there that goes through Whittlesey. When returning, we have a lengthy wait at Ely. This is a ridiculous state of affairs and no wonder people prefer driving than the train. Also, no integration with bus services. Why?

Whatever solution is selected for Whittlesey station it should include lighting from the platforms to the main road as it is currently non-existent.

Whittlesea train station really needs electronic gates

whittlesea & manea station enhancement report of … · whittlesea & manea station...

Documents